Secular reaction to extreme, uhm, dispensationalism?

On May 18, Father Orthoduck published a publisher’s blurb on an anti-rapture secular comic. He commented that the secular comic is probably, in-part, a reaction to a certain strain of Christianity. Yesterday, a poster made the following comment:

But the truth is that a virulent strain of Dispensationalism is so real and pervasive in American evangelical Christianity that the strawman fallacy isn’t so convenient a corner to paint this criticism into. Notwithstanding, I, too, get hesitant to toot the war horn against such a poor expression of Christianity because militant Secularism considers no strain of Christian faith a valid and reasonable human expression.

Hopefully, the poster will not mind if Father Orthoduck makes an analogy. The argument above is very similar to the argument that is made about Jihadists and Muslims. To place that argument in the words of the poster above, Father Orthoduck would have to say something like “the truth is that a virulent strain of Islam is so real and pervasive in conservative Middle-Eastern Mohammedanism that . . . .” In other words, too many argue that the extreme is such a pervasive part of Muslim culture that it cannot be separated from Islam. Then we jump on Muslims because they “get hesitant to toot the war horn against such a poor expression of Islam because militant Secularism considers no strain of Islam a valid and reasonable human expression.” Can you see how the many of our current cultural arguments about Islam precisely parallel the poster’s internal argument about Dispensationalism?

In fact, Evangelical Christianity, and perhaps all too much of American Christianity, has had the same reaction to their more extreme coreligionists as the vast amount of the Muslim world has had to Jihadists. For instance, in the USA, in too many places, the Religious Right has tried to have various books banned under the rubric that they are Satanic, or they promote some value to which they are opposed, or they simply picture something that “children” should not be exposed to. This includes books such as the “Twilight” series, written by a Mormon, and conforming to many Christian values in that the heroine does not have intercourse until after marriage, she is urged to abort her baby and refuses, and “dies” having her baby (they have to turn her into a vampire to save her). As a vampire she refuses to drink human blood, and so on. Nevertheless, the book is opposed simply on the grounds that it has vampires and werewolves. But, where are the Christians who do not agree? Why are they not openly condemning the attempts at extreme censorship? Why is it the secularists that most often raise the hue?

In science education, the insistence that science pronouncements must conform themselves to a particular interpretation of Scripture, even when the secular evidence points in a different direction, and even when fellow conservative Christians do not agree, and the insistence that the “controversy” must be taught (though they are the ones raising it and no one else), also reminds one of the insistence of certain extreme Muslims. The insistence on conspiracies and a conviction that the world is trying to suppress true Christianity are all part of the very similar package. Where are the conservative Christians who do not agree? Why are they not testifying in front of school boards saying that they do not wish their children subjected to such teaching?

This brings up the other interesting parallel. This blog has pointed out time and again that various stances of all too many in the pro-birth movement go directly against various stances of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and of many Orthodox bishops. Nevertheless, in order to fight abortion, full common cause is made with many pro-birthers who directly oppose other pro-life measures promulgated by the bishops. No, or almost no, strong condemnation is made of the anti-life activities of the Religious Right so as to maintain unity in the movement. In the same way, moderate Muslims often make no or almost no strong condemnation of the Jihadists because they wish to preserve a common cause against what they perceive of as an inappropriate world Zionism.

While secularists are no innocents, by a long shot, they are nevertheless drawing the same parallels (you can read some of their articles). While no one argues that the Religious Right has come to the point of the Jihadists, by a long shot, nevertheless increasingly secularists are beginning to draw parallels to how that other movement started. The parallels may be right or wrong, but the increasing demands of the Religious Right, along with the failure of the rest of the Christians-who-fight-abortion to condemn the book bans, etc., the insistence on teaching the controversy, etc., are convincing the secularists that they are facing the beginning of an American Religious State, not simply a Christian America (and there is quite a difference). It is out of this fear, out of the sad triumphalism expressed by Dispensationalism that was documented one or two posts ago, out of the failure of conservative and moderate Christians to express their disagreement with our extreme wing, and yes, somewhat out of a dislike of Christianity (but not to the levels that some Christians claim) that the comic book cited three days ago was born.

You see, it is a whole series of events that is involved, rather than a simplistic explanation about how the Devil hates Christianity and therefore inspires militant Secularists to write comic books. While there is some truth to that, the opening was provided by our failure to speak into some of the bad situations in order to preserve alliances to fight an evil that still needs to be strongly fought, abortion. Notice that Dispensationalism has not even come up. I am still not convinced that it is that theology per se that is the problem, though the Orthodox consider it a heresy (but not one that will keep you from the Kingdom).